Rethinking “Anxiety” in Bible Translations

Kirk E. Miller

With Crossway announcing their new updates to the ESV, I wonder if translations have considered more careful use of language like “anxiety” (instead of “worry,” “concern,” “anguish,” or “distress”), especially given its associations with more precise medical meanings today.

Verses that use the word “anxiety” have not infrequently been illegitimately used to condemn people, as if experiencing distress and anguish is sinful, or as if conditions like PTSD (an anxiety disorder) are moral failings (i.e., a failure to “trust God”).

And before anyone @’s me: Yes, the work of translation requires dealing accurately with the original languages. 🙂 But to convey accurately the meaning of that original also requires careful attention to the associations and meaning of words and phrases in the receptor language (in this case English). Simplistic approaches to translation (the stereotypical first year seminary student) exclusively attend to the former, neglecting the latter (simply taking it for granted).

Consider, the Jesus who told us “do not be anxious” (Mt 6:25), clearly experienced anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36–46). Likewise, the same Paul who said he knew the key to contentment (Phil 4:11-4) spoke of his daily “anxiety” for the churches (2 Cor 11:28), which I don’t think was him confessing his sin! The same Bible that says to cast our “anxieties” on God (1 Pet 5:7) models to us godly laments (see a good third of the Psalter) in which that “casting” clearly does not mean the absence or disappearance of such anxieties.

Yes, failing to trust God is sin. But experiencing distress, anguish, or stress is not sin, nor is it necessarily brought on due to personally moral failing; and we error—and often times do much damage—when we assume so. For instance, if you’re walking through the woods and encounter a grizzly bear, experiencing some anxiety (stress) is not sinful; it’s a healthy (God-given!) survival mechanism.

I think more care could be taken in how we translate these passages referencing “anxiety,” given that word’s contemporary associations. Too often such verses then get misapplied to condemn people experiencing abuse or distress from other terrible circumstances.

Is It Wrong to Want Vengeance (Romans 12:14–21)? | Exegetical, Theological, & Practical Reflections

Kirk E. Miller

In Romans 12:19, Paul says we are not to avenge (enact punitive justice) ourselves. However, the reason we do this is not because as Christians we think vengeance itself is wrong. To the contrary! Again, justice, by definition, is just (good). (In fact, used with the a- prefix, this root is used to form the word “unrighteousness” in Roman 1:18 and elsewhere.) Rather, the reason we ought not enact vengeance for ourselves is that it doesn’t belong to us. God alone is judge, not us (Rom 12:19, citing Deut 32:35; see also Rom 14 where Paul, under different circumstances but in proximate context, emphasizes that God alone is judge).

In fact, the logic of Paul’s instruction here seems to be, you don’t need to enact vengeance, not because vengeance itself is bad and you are wrong to want it to happen, but precisely because you know it will happen. You don’t need to do it, because God will (Rom 12:19). In other words, the foundation for Paul’s commands throughout Romans 12:14-21—to bless in response to curse, not to repay evil with evil, to overcome evil with good, etc.—is this fact that we can trust that God will punish evil, so we don’t have to (in fact, we shouldn’t, since it’s not our prerogative). So likewise, Peter says that Jesus didn’t return reviling or threats (1 Peter 1:21-23), but “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (v.23). Again, it’s not the absence of vengeance, but believing in its guarantee—God will “judge justly”—that enables his people to leave vengeance to God.

Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean we are indifferent to vengeance in this life or that it should never happen. To the contrary! As Paul continues in Rom 13:1-7, he describes the state as a “deacon” (often translated “servant” or “minister”) of God. In what sense? It is “an avenger [same root as “avenge” and “vengeance” in 12:19] who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4, ESV emphasis added). In other words, vengeance is God’s (12:19). But God also authorizes human means, like certain institutions in this life, to deliver that justice and protect victims—even here and now, at least to some degree (I like the word “provisional” here: provisional justice, as opposed to eschatological and ultimate justice).

An image of Logos Bible Software highlighting ever occurrence of each word in Romans 12–13 that shares the common route for vengeance.

I think the proximity in Paul’s use of ἐκδίκησις and ἐκδικέω (in Rom 12:19 and Rom 13:4) then is intentional. Remember, chapter divisions aren’t original, and unfortunately here that big “13” can make us feel a stronger shift in topic than is likely the case.

Continue reading →